For centuries, the standard model of economic activity has rested on a foundation of rational actors seeking to maximize their individual, material utility. This framework, which presumes that tastes and preferences are idiosyncratic and independent of social context 1, has provided powerful models for explaining markets. But, it increasingly fails to account for a vast and growing sphere of economic behavior that appears "irrational" from a purely pecuniary standpoint. Why do individuals choose products that are demonstrably more expensive for similar functional benefits? Why do they adhere to costly social norms, from fashion and diet to professional conduct, even when it provides no direct monetary gain?
The principles of Identity Economics provide the critical lens. This framework posits that economic decisions are driven not only by monetary incentives but by a powerful, non-monetary desire: the pursuit of "identity utility".2 A person's sense of self, and their belonging to a social group, directly affects economic outcomes.2 Individuals gain or lose utility when their actions conform to or depart from the prescribed social norms of the groups with which they identify.3 This desire to maintain one's social belonging can be so powerful that it leads to costly decisions, such as adhering to perceived gender ideals 4 or choosing a lower-paying but identity-affirming career. This "choice of identity" may, in fact, be the most important economic decision an individual makes.4
This identity-seeking behavior is most readily observed in modern consumer culture. Consumption is not merely an economic transaction; it is a social and cultural practice, a primary means by which individuals express their identity, signal their status, and navigate social relationships.5 The "meaning of products in society" and the "consumer's identity" are the two essential variables in this new equation.6 Individuals purchase and use products not just for their functional utility, but for their symbolic value as an expression of status or group affiliation.7 A product’s perceived impact on a consumer’s identity can be the decisive factor in a purchase, far more than its practical value.9
This chapter argues that this search for identity is no longer an ad-hoc or peripheral market force; it has become the central organizing principle for a new institutional logic. We call this the "Vision Economy." This model has emerged to structure this search for identity, providing a formal architecture for the creation, management, and fulfillment of identity utility on a mass scale. It is a response to the fragmentation of traditional identity pillars, such as the church, guild, or local community, which once provided individuals with a sense of shared purpose and belonging.10 The market has stepped into this void, developing a new system for creating and selling "architectures of belonging."
The Vision Economy operates on a three-tiered hierarchy. At the top is the Vision, a "superordinate identity" or meta-culture that defines a cooperative worldview. Below this is the Brand, a "subordinate identity" or sovereign organization that individuals join to live out the Vision, and which competes with other brands on its interpretation of that Vision. At the base is the Product, the tangible tool that allows individuals to participate in the Brand and signal their adherence to the Vision. This chapter will deconstruct this new architecture, showing how it converts abstract belief into monetized identity.
The foundation of the Vision Economy is the "superordinate identity".11 This is a broad, cooperative meta-culture, a shared worldview that defines a "we." It is a "superordinate identification category" 14 that encourages individuals to see themselves as part of a broad community, providing a set of "moral values that proscribe ingroup bias and encourage intergroup fairness".12 It is the ultimate source of legitimacy for the entire ecosystem.
An abstract idea, however, has no economic power. For a Vision to become the basis of an economy, it must be "materialized." It must move from a simple idea to a "lived subcultural experience" 15, a set of "signifying practices" that gives "deep affective value" to objects, language, and norms.16 This materialization is the work of a subculture, and it is accomplished through three primary channels: shared norms, shared aesthetics, and shared language.
First, the Vision is materialized through a set of core organizing principles, values, and beliefs.17 These are the explicit "philosophy" of the group.
The global "Sustainability" movement provides a clear example. The Vision here is a "culture of sustainability" (COS).18 Its core ideal is not just incremental change, but a "fundamental change in cultures that move socio-technical systems toward sustainable production and consumption".19 The norms of this Vision are explicit: a rejection of mainstream consumption patterns, a preference for ecological balance and social equity, and a restructuring of daily life.21
A second example is the "Right to Repair" movement. Its norms are explicit and increasingly codified in legislation and voluntary standards: access to parts, tools, diagnostic software, and schematics; design for disassembly; and the freedom for owners and independent shops to service devices. This is not just a service model; it is a vision for a world where technology remains legible, modifiable, and long‑lived, and where ownership includes the capacity to maintain and improve what we use.
Second, the Vision's norms are expressed through a "social aesthetic".26 Aesthetics are not superficial; they are the "visual perception" of a "cultural identity".27 They are the sensory language that makes the Vision's norms immediately recognizable.
The Sustainability Vision, for example, is defined by an aesthetic of opposition. It explicitly rejects the dominant, unsustainable aesthetic of "Disposable Chic"—an aesthetic characterized by fast-paced trends, novelty, and low-cost, high-waste materials.28 In its place, the Vision champions its own aesthetic values. These include "Timeless Craftsmanship," which is quality-focused, durable, and values repairability, and "Nature-Inspired Minimalism," which prizes simple forms, natural palettes, and functionality.28 This aesthetic is a direct embodiment of the Vision's ethical ideals.29 In this framework, the aesthetic is the ethic.
Third, the Vision is materialized through connective tissue that builds community. A shared "lexicon of symbols and practices" 30 and "cultural signifiers" 31 ties members together. The most potent form of this is the "symbol as synecdoche"—a simple gesture, image, or word that comes to represent the entire, complex Vision.32
The "Slow Food" movement, for example, was born in direct opposition to a powerful symbol of its "other": a "fast food restaurant near the Spanish Steps" in Rome.33 In response, the movement created its own potent synecdoche: the stylized snail logo, now a registered trademark.35 This symbol, combined with its shared linguistic code—"good, clean and fair food for all" 35—and its shared rituals, such as the biennial "Salone del Gusto" fair and the "Ark of Taste" project to catalog endangered foods 33, effectively materializes the abstract Vision into a tangible, shared culture.
The primary economic function of the Vision is to create a new definition of value. It establishes a non-pecuniary status system built on identity utility.3 It takes a product (like fast fashion) and assigns it a high social cost, or negative identity utility. It then takes another product (like a durable, repaired jacket) and assigns it a high social benefit, or positive identity utility. This cultural work precedes the market. It creates the demand by framing certain choices as morally and socially correct within the "in-group."